In defense of Arizona’s insignificance

Iam seriously concerned about recent legislative threats to my irrelevance. And yours. For decades I have operated in a state of blissful insignificance (ask any reader) within the confines of our blissfully insignificant state. This is Arizona. We don’t hold to axioms like: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We’re more like: If it is broke, don’t fix

it. Until now. There appears to be an effort in the Legislature to sabotage our euphoria, to make Arizona and all of its inhabitants – including me – meaningful.

There’s even talk about making us — God forbid — influential. At least politically. Republican Rep. Mark Finchem wants the Legislature to join other states in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. In essence, this would do away with the Electoral College in presidential politics. The idea is to reduce the power and attention of the so-called “battleground” states and give all the rest of us some influence. It would do so by guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Good, old-fashioned democracy.

In an essay for The Arizona Republic, Finchem wrote, “For years, Arizonans have felt ignored during the campaign for president. It feels like the candidates don’t care what we think, don’t care about our issues, and don’t bother asking

See MONTINI, Page 2F

for our vote.”

To which I say: Yes! Exactly. And isn’t that great?

Finchem added, “In 2012, two-thirds of all campaign visits and expenditures went to just four ‘battleground’ states — Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Iowa. Arizona received no campaign visits at all in the general election, from either of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates, and virtually no campaign spend- ing.”

To which I say, again: Yes! Exactly. And isn’t that great?

Finally, the representative says, “Imagine a campaign cycle where Arizona gets the attention of candidates and campaigns. Where Arizona issues like border security and federal land management get a public airing because the candidates know they have to deal with the issues that we care about.” Actually, we don’t need to imagine it. All we have to do is look at what goes on in those battleground states and ask ourselves: Do we really want that?

Do we want to endure constant visits by the most annoying people on Earth — politicians? Along with the annoying staffs of those candidates, and their cheery volunteers? And — worst of all — the media?

Then there are the TV ads, and more ads, and more ads, and more ads.

If the price of boosting the local economy, along with Arizona’s profile, is a constant barrage of exaggerated, insulting or self-promoting campaign com- mercials, I’d rather not pay it. And what good would it do? Sure, the candidate will discuss what Finchem calls “Arizona issues,” but will it amount to anything? Or will it be just another politician telling voters what they want to hear? (Yeah, that’s what I think, too.)

Eliminating the power of the Electoral College is a good idea.

But while Republicans like Finchem push that idea — which would guarantee that only a candidate who wins the popular vote can become commander in chief — I’d pass along three cautionary words:

President Al Gore.

All we have to do is look at what goes on in those battleground states and ask ourselves: Do we really want that?